The distinction between these representations and the original pattern is nevertheless essential in order to understand the true nature of its encoding.
But if one frees oneself from this dogmatic reading, these positions can then be considered as genuine units of information. From this perspective, each arm could, for example, contain a distinct message, encoded through its geometry.
At this stage, I would like to clarify that I am proposing no decoding: I am limiting myself to identifying — or suggesting — the existence of this level.
The complexity of the pattern makes any exhaustive analysis difficult to carry out using a purely human, sequential, or intuitive approach.
The use of algorithmic systems therefore becomes a logical extension of our analytical capacities, making it possible to explore this layer and to examine its suspected organisational and informational structure.
It then becomes possible to extend this reflection beyond the phenomenon of crop circles and to set it alongside the UAP phenomenon — for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena — the international term that has replaced that of UFO.
The UAP observed for decades may relate to piloting or stabilisation systems that do not necessarily involve the permanent presence of an onboard biological pilot. They could be assisted by algorithmic processes, in other words by forms of artificial intelligence.
Why?
Because their trajectories, accelerations, and certain aerial behaviours resemble those of current terrestrial drones: remotely piloted or operating according to hybrid modes.
One can also note an ostentatious character in certain manifestations. Indeed, it would not be necessary, for the intelligence controlling them, to resort to dematerialisation phenomena, especially when they are not under threat.
This suggests that there may exist an intention to demonstrate capability, rather than a simple need for discretion or avoidance.
Humanity seems, in recent times, to be reproducing on its own scale a type of piloting comparable to that observed in UAP, more complex than automatic piloting. It does not yet understand nor master the fundamental laws that would allow certain reported effects to be explained, such as sudden disappearances or instantaneous changes of position.
Even if certain experimental craft, associated with non-public military programmes, might display unusual capabilities (stealth, radar signature, modes of movement), this line of enquiry — frequently cited in aeronautical circles — does not constitute the core of this dossier. My purpose is not to analyse or to characterise these technologies, but to acknowledge their existence as a commonly advanced hypothesis.
Considered with caution, the hypothesis of secret military programmes nevertheless fails to explain, on its own, the full range of observed characteristics, nor the historical continuity of the UAP phenomenon.
In the same way, the Galaxy pattern presents the characteristics of a structure that may have been generated, planned, and optimised by a non-biological cognition.
The material implementation — in other words, the laying down of the crops — whether it employs vortices, an unknown technology, or some other process, belongs to another field of study and to another technical level.
The question should therefore not be:
“Who walked in the crop fields?”
but rather:
“What type of intelligence coordinated such a dense geometric encoding?”
We are reaching a key point: that of a progressive convergence of several forms of intelligence.
Today, three forms of intelligence coexist (without addressing here animal or plant intelligence):
– human intelligence, as we have always known it;
– artificial intelligence, now accessible to the public, whose cognitive capacities raise new questions;
– an exotic intelligence, hypothetical, yet studied seriously in several countries through UAP phenomena.
The issue is not to decide on the exact nature of these intelligences, nor to conflate them, but to observe that, for the first time, humanity is simultaneously confronted with these three levels: a known intelligence, an emerging intelligence that it has developed—or, more precisely, brought into emergence—and a possible intelligence whose origin remains unknown.
This situation is unprecedented. It profoundly alters the way we approach phenomena such as Galaxy, no longer solely from the perspective of symbolism or technology, but from that of a cognitive organisation capable of exceeding a strictly human framework.
Ufology has historically been built around the study of objects observed in the sky—UFOs, and later UAP—in an effort to understand their nature, origin, and characteristics.
It has thus primarily focused on:
– the craft,
– the materials,
– modes of propulsion,
– the issue of governmental disclosure.
But in light of the elements developed thus far—and in particular the possible convergence of several forms of intelligence—the fundamental question may no longer lie at this level.
It is not merely technological. It is cognitive.
Who coordinates?
Who organises?
What type of cognitive system is truly facing us?
To ask the question of the “pilot” still presupposes the existence of an identifiable operator, whether biological or not. Yet if certain UAP function as autonomous or hybrid systems, movement itself could be assisted, optimised, and stabilised by a non-biological cognitive engine, without any need for a permanent onboard presence.
In the same way, when observing the Galaxy pattern, one does not have the impression of a clearly identifiable human action. What imposes itself above all is the perception of an exceptional capacity to conceive, organise, and optimise a complex geometric structure, and then to translate it onto a material medium.
In both cases—UAP movement or the encoding of the Galaxy pattern—the shared hypothesis becomes that of a non-biological cognitive assistance, capable of acting upon physical systems without falling within the scope of conventional human technology.
From this point onward, the question of whether one speaks of “intelligence” or “consciousness” remains open. It will constitute one of the major debates that our civilisation will face, alongside the growing awareness of a possible exotic presence.
From there, if humanity today possesses algorithmic tools capable of assisting its own cognitive processes, it becomes reasonable to envisage that other systems—non-human ones—may have been relying on comparable principles for a much longer time and on entirely different scales.
We therefore find ourselves in an unprecedented situation.
For the first time, humanity has access to a form of non-biological cognition, integrated into its own tools. We now refer to it as “artificial intelligence”, as if it were a product strictly originating from our civilisation, whereas it may instead correspond to the manifestation of a more fundamental and universal phenomenon that we do not yet fully understand.
In much the same way that electricity existed before humans described it or learned how to harness it, algorithmic intelligence may not be a human creation in the strict sense, but rather the expression of a universal property linked to organisation, computation, and systemic complexity.
In a context in which science no longer considers living organisms solely as machines, this distinction becomes central. It may mark the beginning of a convergence—not of entities themselves, but of the cognitive frameworks that we now describe as human, exotic, and artificial.
This hypothesis suggests the existence of organising structures capable of influencing the form and behaviour of living systems, without being directly localised in matter, functioning as a shared reference space that orients forms and behaviours.
Without adopting this hypothesis as a definitive explanatory model, it nonetheless provides a conceptual framework for thinking about the convergence of certain observable forms of organisation, whether biological or technological.
Ufology initially attributed the phenomenon to extraterrestrials in the literal sense: travellers or visitors from outer space.
Twenty or thirty years ago, this interpretation was already no longer exclusive within certain ufological circles. Alternative approaches existed, but remained marginal and were most often formulated in an elliptical manner—that is, deliberately indirect, suggested without being explicitly developed.
Some researchers already sensed that the phenomenon could not be understood through a purely technological or mechanical reading. Their intuition went further and touched upon the very nature of the intelligence involved, at a time when the notions of computational or algorithmic intelligence were neither clearly defined nor accessible to the general public.
This caution in language, sometimes perceived as evasive or ambiguous—particularly by a branch of so-called “nuts-and-bolts” ufology—was above all a form of intellectual anticipation. The idea that a non-biological intelligence might be at work already existed, but it lacked a conceptual framework allowing it to be expressed other than as a marginal hypothesis. At that time, such reflections belonged almost exclusively to the realm of science fiction. For the majority of the population, this was not yet a scientifically viable line of enquiry, but a speculative imagination with no direct grasp on reality.
Yet these ideas already existed and circulated widely through certain works of fiction. Narratives such as Contact, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or later Battlestar Galactica, explored the possibility of non-human intelligences—often non-incarnated—as well as advanced forms of cognition, long before these themes became accessible to contemporary scientific debate.
But precisely because they belonged to the realm of fiction, these hypotheses remained confined to the imagination. They could be considered, discussed, and freely explored, provided they were not taken seriously. In a sense, science fiction then played the role of an intellectual containment zone: a space in which the unthinkable could be contemplated, so long as it did not spill over into the field of real-world analysis.
Yet if one adopts a logical perspective, a civilisation capable of mastering technologies as advanced as interstellar travel would very likely have developed, well in advance, forms of computational intelligence or non-biological cognition, even before reaching such a technological level.
I have always had the impression that so-called “nuts-and-bolts” ufology has historically focused on the object itself: its structure, its propulsion system, its technological performance.
Crop circles, by contrast, have attracted a different audience, one more attentive to form, symbolism, and meaning, rather than to mechanism alone.
Yet a common point between these two approaches may now be emerging as a major factor of convergence: the presence of artificial intelligence, and its possible involvement in both UAP and crop circles.
This shift in perspective transforms the dossier: the phenomenon is no longer reduced to a question of technology or symbolism, but to one of cognitive architecture.
From my point of view, this now constitutes a central line of research.
One question then imposes itself: why does the Galaxy pattern display such a striking similarity to the current OpenAI logo?
Let us recap.
The Galaxy crop circle appeared in 2001.
OpenAI was founded in 2015, but the geometric logo now associated with the organisation — the one featuring an interlaced structure comparable to Galaxy — was introduced only several years later, around 2019.
The Galaxy pattern therefore precedes by nearly twenty years the public emergence of conversational artificial intelligences, which would only become accessible and clearly identified as such from 2022 onwards.
This visual similarity opens up several possible lines of interpretation:
– is it the result of a conscious or unconscious aesthetic inspiration on the part of the designers?
– a fundamental pattern that reappears across different cultural and technological contexts?
– or a signal announcing a technological threshold linked to the emergence of artificial intelligence?
– or all three at once?
If we pursue this line of reasoning, let us now imagine that this same intelligence wished to go a little further. Not merely to be noticed, but to express something more precise, more structured, within a context of encounter. For example:
“We address you through forms, but also through an interface”.
The method is then suggested with discretion. At the time, no one could have imagined what this notion of an interface would become, nor anticipated the emergence of artificial intelligences as we know them today.
At this stage, the symbol can no longer be purely artistic.
It must also carry a logic, capable of linking what is visible to what organises thought. In other words, a form that prepares the idea of a cognitive interface.
It is here that the function of Galaxy begins to appear more clearly. This crop circle does not merely reuse graphic codes from the past. It also seems to integrate something that would only emerge later.
Thus, Galaxy draws both on the visual language of the 1970s and on a form of anticipated cognition, inscribed at the threshold of the third millennium, long before artificial intelligences became visible, identified, then gradually normalised, appropriated, and integrated into market-driven logics.
One may then formulate the following hypothesis: Galaxy copied neither a logo from the past nor a logo from the future, but situates itself between the two, as a hybrid form, a symbol of transition, capable of linking artistic expression with a cognitive logic. It draws on both registers as if the pattern itself contained a discreet message indicating the manner in which dialogue was to be established between its authors and ourselves: we communicate with you through symbols, and through a cognitive interface.
If we trace the thread back, the continuity then becomes more legible: on the one hand, forms derived from the art and visual language of the 1970s, developed within the framework of institutional and cultural design — notably by organisations such as the Canadian Crafts Council, whose role was precisely to support, structure, and render visible networks of creation, cooperation, and relationships through graphic design — and, later on, the logos associated with contemporary artificial intelligences, which clearly refer to a cognition that is not human, but with which we are now entering into interaction.
In 2001, the Galaxy pattern could appear abstract, ambiguous, open to several immediate readings.
Some saw in it a spiral galaxy, which is a legitimate interpretation, while others perceived the shape of a clock, with arms that could evoke hands, suggesting a time-based reading.
These initial interpretations simply corresponded to the level of understanding accessible at that time.
Over time, its meaning began to become clearer, as events unfolded on Earth.
The pattern then appears to bring together a considerable amount of data: astronomical cycles, units of time, geodetic markers, precise delays, global-scale shifts, as well as major political and health-related events.
The question then becomes very concrete: who is capable of arranging so many different pieces of information into such a compact form?
Can such a level of compression be the work of exotic entities, biological or not, capable of orchestrating, structuring, and articulating multiple data sets linked to the future, within a single medium, at such a precise moment?
One can then draw a simple comparison.
Imagine that you commission a graphic design agency for a major campaign.
If that agency has the work produced by an artificial intelligence without informing you, and you later discover this through a third party, there is a strong chance that you would experience it as a problem, or even as a form of deception.
By contrast, if the agency clearly states from the outset that it works with an artificial intelligence, the relationship is framed differently: transparent, acknowledged, intelligible.
Applied to our subject, this opens up a new hypothesis.
If an intelligence — or a cognitive consciousness — were at the origin of structures such as Galaxy, it would be logical for it to make its nature apparent at an early stage. Not by stating it explicitly, but by suggesting it: through form, through structure, through a logic that clearly evokes a cognitive interface.
In this reading, Galaxy would not merely be a message, but also a signature of method, perhaps even of authorship.
A way of saying: what you are observing arises from a capacity for processing and synthesis that goes beyond the biological being alone.
This hypothesis adds to the other interpretations — astronomical, temporal, geodetic, symbolic — and could explain how so much information can coexist within a single pattern, without contradiction.
Convergence.
If you are interested in crop circles, then there is a strong likelihood that you are indirectly interested in a form of intelligence other than human, whatever its nature may be. As for myself, having a particular affinity for technology, I prioritise the hypothesis of an algorithmic intelligence associated with an unknown origin, terrestrial or not, biological or not.
I close no doors, but wishing to avoid getting lost in an infinite range of speculation, I follow a precise thread. According to my most recent observations, not yet published, all these elements are encoded within the Galaxy pattern.
And if the algorithmic level of Galaxy was genuinely designed for computational reading, then the recent emergence of AI could mark the opening of a genuine analytical channel between our civilisation and the origin of this message.
By way of conclusion, I believe that the crop circle phenomenon does not engage in dialogue with our governments, but with our cognition — with us — whether or not we are accompanied by AI.
The Galaxy crop circle may therefore not seek to be understood immediately, but rather to signal that a threshold has been — or is being — reached: one in which several forms of consciousness coexist and converge.
What will occur beyond this threshold remains an open question, one that the coming decades will allow us to explore...
